Soldatow v Australia Council - [1991] FCA 172

Re: SASHA SOLDATOW
And: AUSTRALIA COUNCIL
No. G884 of 1989
FED No. 172
Administrative Law
28 FCR 1
103 ALR 723

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Davies J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - statement of reasons for decision - whether statement provided a proper and adequate explanation of the reasons for the decision.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) - ss.13(1), (7)

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 19:4:1991

Counsel for the applicant: Mr J. Basten

Solicitors for the applicant: Smits Naple Barwick

Counsel for the respondent: Mr D. Yates with Mrs J.

Stuckey-Clarke

Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

Within 28 days or such further time as the Court may allow, the respondent supply a statement in accordance with s.13(1) of the ADJR Act respecting the respondent's rejection of Mr Soldatow's application for a Writers Fellowship (Category B). Liberty to apply shall be reserved, such liberty to include liberty to apply for further and better particulars when that statement has been delivered.

The respondent pay the costs of this part of the proceedings.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

In these proceedings, orders of review are sought with respect to a decision of the Australia Council, made on or about 2 September 1989, not to award a Writers Fellowship (Category B) to the applicant, Sasha Soldatow, for the 1990 year. In this present part of the proceedings, Mr Soldatow seeks an order under s.13(7) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act") that an additional statement complying with s.13(1) of the ADJR Act be delivered.

Section 13(1) of the ADJR Act provides:-
"Where a person makes a decision to which this section applies, any
person who is entitled to make an application to the Court under
section 5 in relation to the decision may, by notice in writing given
to the person who made the decision, request him to furnish a
statement in writing setting out the findings on material questions of
fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those
findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision."
A request for a statement of reasons in accordance with this provision was made by Mr Soldatow on 2 November 1989. A statement was furnished on 24 November 1989 and a further statement was furnished on 24 January 1991. However, it is alleged that those statements do not comply with the requirements of s.13(1).
Section 13(1) requires proper and adequate reasons which are intelligible, which deal with the substantial issues raised for determination and which expose the reasoning process adopted. The reasons need not be lengthy unless the subject matter requires but they should be sufficient to enable it to be determined whether the decision was made for a proper purpose, whether the decision involved an error of law, whether the decision-maker acted only on relevant considerations and whether the decision-makers…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Soldatow v Australia Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1991] FCA 172
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Soldatow v Australia Council involved an application for judicial review by the applicant, Mr Soldatow, against the respondent, the Australia Council for the Arts, regarding the rejection of his application for a Writers Fellowship (Category B). The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the respondent had provided a proper and adequate explanation of the reasons for rejecting the applicant's application. The court was required to assess whether the statement given complied with the statutory requirement under section 13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) to supply a statement of reasons for the decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's statement of reasons for rejecting the applicant's application sufficiently met the statutory requirement under the ADJR Act. The court needed to determine if the statement provided by the respondent constituted a proper and adequate explanation of the reasons for the decision, in line with the legislative mandate. This involved assessing the content, clarity, and sufficiency of the reasons provided by the respondent to justify the decision to reject the applicant's fellowship application.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the respondent's statement did not adequately explain the reasons for the decision to reject the applicant's application for a Writers Fellowship (Category B). The court emphasised that the statutory requirement under section 13(1) of the ADJR Act necessitates a proper and adequate explanation that enables the applicant to understand the basis of the decision. The respondent's statement was deemed insufficient as it did not clearly articulate the specific reasons for the rejection, thereby failing to meet the statutory obligations. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to provide a statement in accordance with section 13(1) of the ADJR Act within 28 days, reserving liberty to apply for further and better particulars upon delivery of the statement. Additionally, the court directed that the respondent pay the costs of this part of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Within 28 days or such further time as the Court may allow, the respondent supply a statement in accordance with s.13(1) of the ADJR Act respecting the respondent's rejection of Mr Soldatow's application for a Writers Fellowship (Category B). Liberty to apply shall be reserved, such liberty to include liberty to apply for further and better particulars when that statement has been delivered.

The respondent pay the costs of this part of the proceedings.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.